The CSA was short-lived and aside from the abhorrent issue of slavery, the Founders of the CSA were actually very astute politicians who learned from experience, and sought to remedy those issues believed to plague the USA.

At 2/10/2016 11:44:15 AM, augcaesarustus wrote:The CSA was short-lived and aside from the abhorrent issue of slavery, the Founders of the CSA were actually very astute politicians who learned from experience, and sought to remedy those issues believed to plague the USA.

At 2/10/2016 11:44:15 AM, augcaesarustus wrote:The CSA was short-lived and aside from the abhorrent issue of slavery, the Founders of the CSA were actually very astute politicians who learned from experience, and sought to remedy those issues believed to plague the USA.

The purpose of this post is to draw your attention to the institutional problems in the American political system. The Confederate Constitution (except for the slavery clauses) actually presents many innovations that would create a cleaner, less corrupt system of Government.

The purpose of having a Constitution is not only to establish basic institutions, but to also enhance government so that it adequately protects the 'national interest.' It's not unreasonable to assert that the nature of public policy would shift toward a more national focus if political institutions were changed as well. A simple example of this is if the Constitution has this clause added to it: "All bills or resolutions having the force of the law shall deal only with subject...." or "All bills for appropriating money shall specify in Federal currency each appropriation and the purpose for which it was made...." These provisions would permanently eliminate riders in Bills. It would also create greater scrutiny over Bills, since Congress can examine each Bill in its own merit. It helps to promote the national interest over sectional and regional interests.

Second, whilst line-item veto has been discussed for a long time, I don't understand why it's such a controversial issue? If the President can veto appropriations, it actually properly fulfills the role of the Executive - that is to protect the national interest. If the President can co-opt a pliant Congress to support policies of national interest (even if you don't agree with them), then surely this is a fair power that should be granted to the President?

At 2/10/2016 11:44:15 AM, augcaesarustus wrote:The CSA was short-lived and aside from the abhorrent issue of slavery, the Founders of the CSA were actually very astute politicians who learned from experience, and sought to remedy those issues believed to plague the USA.

My assertion is this: if the CSA Constitution was implemented instead of the USA (minus the slavery), the nation would be better, stronger and more prosperous.

America would be a much better place if the CSA won the Civil War. There'd still have been slavery for maybe 20 more years tops, but there would be no KKK or other racist organizations, and there would've been a much better relationship between races. I always think of it like this: Your mom interrupts you doing something and gets pissed off at you because you haven't cleaned your room, but were planning on cleaning it later in the day. Now you're pissed off too, and less inclined to clean your room. The same could've been said about Civil Rights in the South, which took 100 years after the Civil War to fully implement, due to the fact that the North forced the South to capitulate militarily and abandon their already waning ideology.

At 2/10/2016 11:44:15 AM, augcaesarustus wrote:The CSA was short-lived and aside from the abhorrent issue of slavery, the Founders of the CSA were actually very astute politicians who learned from experience, and sought to remedy those issues believed to plague the USA.

My assertion is this: if the CSA Constitution was implemented instead of the USA (minus the slavery), the nation would be better, stronger and more prosperous.

America would be a much better place if the CSA won the Civil War. There'd still have been slavery for maybe 20 more years tops, but there would be no KKK or other racist organizations, and there would've been a much better relationship between races. I always think of it like this: Your mom interrupts you doing something and gets pissed off at you because you haven't cleaned your room, but were planning on cleaning it later in the day. Now you're pissed off too, and less inclined to clean your room. The same could've been said about Civil Rights in the South, which took 100 years after the Civil War to fully implement, due to the fact that the North forced the South to capitulate militarily and abandon their already waning ideology.

Uh.............This is the biggest denial of history I've seen in a long, long time. Slavery was a foundational pillar of the South's economy. And you think they would have up and abandoned it within 20 years? No way.

At 2/10/2016 11:44:15 AM, augcaesarustus wrote:The CSA was short-lived and aside from the abhorrent issue of slavery, the Founders of the CSA were actually very astute politicians who learned from experience, and sought to remedy those issues believed to plague the USA.

My assertion is this: if the CSA Constitution was implemented instead of the USA (minus the slavery), the nation would be better, stronger and more prosperous.

America would be a much better place if the CSA won the Civil War. There'd still have been slavery for maybe 20 more years tops, but there would be no KKK or other racist organizations, and there would've been a much better relationship between races. I always think of it like this: Your mom interrupts you doing something and gets pissed off at you because you haven't cleaned your room, but were planning on cleaning it later in the day. Now you're pissed off too, and less inclined to clean your room. The same could've been said about Civil Rights in the South, which took 100 years after the Civil War to fully implement, due to the fact that the North forced the South to capitulate militarily and abandon their already waning ideology.

Uh.............This is the biggest denial of history I've seen in a long, long time. Slavery was a foundational pillar of the South's economy. And you think they would have up and abandoned it within 20 years? No way.

You're wrong here, to say that slavery was the pillar completely discounts the fact that the South made money exclusively through exportation and trade. Agricultural trade with the world was the pillar of the South's economy and the South exploited slave labor to maximize their profits through trade. This is why the Southern economy was destroyed when the Union blockaded their ports.

20-30 years is what most historians agree upon. Slavery was already on the decline, the slave trade stopped in 1807, so no more additional slaves were brought to America. Only 5% of the Southern population owned slaves in 1860. 75% of those owners held less than 10 slaves, and worked along side them in the fields. Thousands of freed slaves immigrated to Liberia during the same period as well.

It's also important to look at why Northern states abolished slavery. Simple answer: Industrialization. The South lagged behind the North in industrialization, but industrialization in the south was on the rise after the Civil War. The tractor was invented in 1892 for example, which would drastically decrease the need for slave labor. Also during the Civil War, the world completely switched who they got cotton from. Now, instead of the US, they got it from Egypt. The abolitionist movement wasn't only in the North in 1860, it was in place all around the Western world, which is who the South traded with, primarily GB and France.Many nations would have boycotted Confederate cotton due to Slavery, and this is exactly why Britain and France never recognized the legitimacy of the Confederacy and didn't aid them during the war-The Confederates owned Slaves.

Check out this article that actually points out Confederate plans to abolish slavery to win recognition from those powers, and also win back the trade that the Southern economy depended on: https://www.libertyclassroom.com...

At 2/10/2016 11:44:15 AM, augcaesarustus wrote:The CSA was short-lived and aside from the abhorrent issue of slavery, the Founders of the CSA were actually very astute politicians who learned from experience, and sought to remedy those issues believed to plague the USA.

My assertion is this: if the CSA Constitution was implemented instead of the USA (minus the slavery), the nation would be better, stronger and more prosperous.

America would be a much better place if the CSA won the Civil War. There'd still have been slavery for maybe 20 more years tops, but there would be no KKK or other racist organizations, and there would've been a much better relationship between races. I always think of it like this: Your mom interrupts you doing something and gets pissed off at you because you haven't cleaned your room, but were planning on cleaning it later in the day. Now you're pissed off too, and less inclined to clean your room. The same could've been said about Civil Rights in the South, which took 100 years after the Civil War to fully implement, due to the fact that the North forced the South to capitulate militarily and abandon their already waning ideology.

Uh.............This is the biggest denial of history I've seen in a long, long time. Slavery was a foundational pillar of the South's economy. And you think they would have up and abandoned it within 20 years? No way.

Yes they would they were already the first country to outlaw slave trade with Africa. It was out the door, and even blacks knew it and is why they were more than halpy to VOLUNTEER to join the confederate army.

At 2/10/2016 11:44:15 AM, augcaesarustus wrote:The CSA was short-lived and aside from the abhorrent issue of slavery, the Founders of the CSA were actually very astute politicians who learned from experience, and sought to remedy those issues believed to plague the USA.

My assertion is this: if the CSA Constitution was implemented instead of the USA (minus the slavery), the nation would be better, stronger and more prosperous.

America would be a much better place if the CSA won the Civil War. There'd still have been slavery for maybe 20 more years tops, but there would be no KKK or other racist organizations, and there would've been a much better relationship between races. I always think of it like this: Your mom interrupts you doing something and gets pissed off at you because you haven't cleaned your room, but were planning on cleaning it later in the day. Now you're pissed off too, and less inclined to clean your room. The same could've been said about Civil Rights in the South, which took 100 years after the Civil War to fully implement, due to the fact that the North forced the South to capitulate militarily and abandon their already waning ideology.

Uh.............This is the biggest denial of history I've seen in a long, long time. Slavery was a foundational pillar of the South's economy. And you think they would have up and abandoned it within 20 years? No way.

Yes they would they were already the first country to outlaw slave trade with Africa. It was out the door, and even blacks knew it and is why they were more than halpy to VOLUNTEER to join the confederate army.

At 2/10/2016 11:44:15 AM, augcaesarustus wrote:The CSA was short-lived and aside from the abhorrent issue of slavery, the Founders of the CSA were actually very astute politicians who learned from experience, and sought to remedy those issues believed to plague the USA.

My assertion is this: if the CSA Constitution was implemented instead of the USA (minus the slavery), the nation would be better, stronger and more prosperous.

America would be a much better place if the CSA won the Civil War. There'd still have been slavery for maybe 20 more years tops, but there would be no KKK or other racist organizations, and there would've been a much better relationship between races. I always think of it like this: Your mom interrupts you doing something and gets pissed off at you because you haven't cleaned your room, but were planning on cleaning it later in the day. Now you're pissed off too, and less inclined to clean your room. The same could've been said about Civil Rights in the South, which took 100 years after the Civil War to fully implement, due to the fact that the North forced the South to capitulate militarily and abandon their already waning ideology.

The point of this article is not about the Confederacy, although the title indicates so, it's more about the Confederate Constitution, and the steps the Framers took to improve the structural problems with America's political institutions. It's the best example of a 'revised' Constitution (minus the slave clauses). I don't really care about the Confederacy, and frankly I'm glad they lost the war.

At 2/10/2016 11:44:15 AM, augcaesarustus wrote:The CSA was short-lived and aside from the abhorrent issue of slavery, the Founders of the CSA were actually very astute politicians who learned from experience, and sought to remedy those issues believed to plague the USA.

My assertion is this: if the CSA Constitution was implemented instead of the USA (minus the slavery), the nation would be better, stronger and more prosperous.

America would be a much better place if the CSA won the Civil War. There'd still have been slavery for maybe 20 more years tops, but there would be no KKK or other racist organizations, and there would've been a much better relationship between races. I always think of it like this: Your mom interrupts you doing something and gets pissed off at you because you haven't cleaned your room, but were planning on cleaning it later in the day. Now you're pissed off too, and less inclined to clean your room. The same could've been said about Civil Rights in the South, which took 100 years after the Civil War to fully implement, due to the fact that the North forced the South to capitulate militarily and abandon their already waning ideology.

Uh.............This is the biggest denial of history I've seen in a long, long time. Slavery was a foundational pillar of the South's economy. And you think they would have up and abandoned it within 20 years? No way.

Yes they would they were already the first country to outlaw slave trade with Africa. It was out the door, and even blacks knew it and is why they were more than halpy to VOLUNTEER to join the confederate army.

At 2/10/2016 11:44:15 AM, augcaesarustus wrote:The CSA was short-lived and aside from the abhorrent issue of slavery, the Founders of the CSA were actually very astute politicians who learned from experience, and sought to remedy those issues believed to plague the USA.

My assertion is this: if the CSA Constitution was implemented instead of the USA (minus the slavery), the nation would be better, stronger and more prosperous.

America would be a much better place if the CSA won the Civil War. There'd still have been slavery for maybe 20 more years tops, but there would be no KKK or other racist organizations, and there would've been a much better relationship between races. I always think of it like this: Your mom interrupts you doing something and gets pissed off at you because you haven't cleaned your room, but were planning on cleaning it later in the day. Now you're pissed off too, and less inclined to clean your room. The same could've been said about Civil Rights in the South, which took 100 years after the Civil War to fully implement, due to the fact that the North forced the South to capitulate militarily and abandon their already waning ideology.

Uh.............This is the biggest denial of history I've seen in a long, long time. Slavery was a foundational pillar of the South's economy. And you think they would have up and abandoned it within 20 years? No way.

You're wrong here, to say that slavery was the pillar completely discounts the fact that the South made money exclusively through exportation and trade. Agricultural trade with the world was the pillar of the South's economy and the South exploited slave labor to maximize their profits through trade. This is why the Southern economy was destroyed when the Union blockaded their ports.

And slavery was a huge part of Southern agriculture. Their very Constitution made it illegal to prohibit slavery. There's no way they would have stopped. There was no abolitionist movement in the South. No major push for slavery to end.

20-30 years is what most historians agree upon. Slavery was already on the decline, the slave trade stopped in 1807, so no more additional slaves were brought to America. Only 5% of the Southern population owned slaves in 1860. 75% of those owners held less than 10 slaves, and worked along side them in the fields. Thousands of freed slaves immigrated to Liberia during the same period as well.

No, most historians do not agree on that. Regency Publishing agrees on that, when they publish their works of fiction. Powell rather obviously calls peaceful emancipation a better alternative than war, but this ignores the fact that there was no push for peaceful emancipation in the south. Even Powell admits that it would have taken a long time - certainly much longer than 20 years.

It's also important to look at why Northern states abolished slavery. Simple answer: Industrialization. The South lagged behind the North in industrialization, but industrialization in the south was on the rise after the Civil War. The tractor was invented in 1892 for example, which would drastically decrease the need for slave labor. Also during the Civil War, the world completely switched who they got cotton from. Now, instead of the US, they got it from Egypt. The abolitionist movement wasn't only in the North in 1860, it was in place all around the Western world, which is who the South traded with, primarily GB and France.Many nations would have boycotted Confederate cotton due to Slavery, and this is exactly why Britain and France never recognized the legitimacy of the Confederacy and didn't aid them during the war-The Confederates owned Slaves.

Britain and France actually largely supported the Confederacy. If they hadn't already been Republic-esque countries, they would have lent their unconditional support. The only reason they did not was because of their people being against it.

Check out this article that actually points out Confederate plans to abolish slavery to win recognition from those powers, and also win back the trade that the Southern economy depended on: https://www.libertyclassroom.com...

At 2/10/2016 11:44:15 AM, augcaesarustus wrote:The CSA was short-lived and aside from the abhorrent issue of slavery, the Founders of the CSA were actually very astute politicians who learned from experience, and sought to remedy those issues believed to plague the USA.

My assertion is this: if the CSA Constitution was implemented instead of the USA (minus the slavery), the nation would be better, stronger and more prosperous.

America would be a much better place if the CSA won the Civil War. There'd still have been slavery for maybe 20 more years tops, but there would be no KKK or other racist organizations, and there would've been a much better relationship between races. I always think of it like this: Your mom interrupts you doing something and gets pissed off at you because you haven't cleaned your room, but were planning on cleaning it later in the day. Now you're pissed off too, and less inclined to clean your room. The same could've been said about Civil Rights in the South, which took 100 years after the Civil War to fully implement, due to the fact that the North forced the South to capitulate militarily and abandon their already waning ideology.

Uh.............This is the biggest denial of history I've seen in a long, long time. Slavery was a foundational pillar of the South's economy. And you think they would have up and abandoned it within 20 years? No way.

Yes they would they were already the first country to outlaw slave trade with Africa. It was out the door, and even blacks knew it and is why they were more than halpy to VOLUNTEER to join the confederate army.

The south will rise again.

Oh, and the Confederacy banned blacks from serving as soldiers until 1865

At 2/10/2016 11:44:15 AM, augcaesarustus wrote:The CSA was short-lived and aside from the abhorrent issue of slavery, the Founders of the CSA were actually very astute politicians who learned from experience, and sought to remedy those issues believed to plague the USA.

My assertion is this: if the CSA Constitution was implemented instead of the USA (minus the slavery), the nation would be better, stronger and more prosperous.

America would be a much better place if the CSA won the Civil War. There'd still have been slavery for maybe 20 more years tops, but there would be no KKK or other racist organizations, and there would've been a much better relationship between races. I always think of it like this: Your mom interrupts you doing something and gets pissed off at you because you haven't cleaned your room, but were planning on cleaning it later in the day. Now you're pissed off too, and less inclined to clean your room. The same could've been said about Civil Rights in the South, which took 100 years after the Civil War to fully implement, due to the fact that the North forced the South to capitulate militarily and abandon their already waning ideology.

Uh.............This is the biggest denial of history I've seen in a long, long time. Slavery was a foundational pillar of the South's economy. And you think they would have up and abandoned it within 20 years? No way.

Yes they would they were already the first country to outlaw slave trade with Africa. It was out the door, and even blacks knew it and is why they were more than halpy to VOLUNTEER to join the confederate army.

At 2/10/2016 11:44:15 AM, augcaesarustus wrote:The CSA was short-lived and aside from the abhorrent issue of slavery, the Founders of the CSA were actually very astute politicians who learned from experience, and sought to remedy those issues believed to plague the USA.

My assertion is this: if the CSA Constitution was implemented instead of the USA (minus the slavery), the nation would be better, stronger and more prosperous.

America would be a much better place if the CSA won the Civil War. There'd still have been slavery for maybe 20 more years tops, but there would be no KKK or other racist organizations, and there would've been a much better relationship between races. I always think of it like this: Your mom interrupts you doing something and gets pissed off at you because you haven't cleaned your room, but were planning on cleaning it later in the day. Now you're pissed off too, and less inclined to clean your room. The same could've been said about Civil Rights in the South, which took 100 years after the Civil War to fully implement, due to the fact that the North forced the South to capitulate militarily and abandon their already waning ideology.

Uh.............This is the biggest denial of history I've seen in a long, long time. Slavery was a foundational pillar of the South's economy. And you think they would have up and abandoned it within 20 years? No way.

Yes they would they were already the first country to outlaw slave trade with Africa. It was out the door, and even blacks knew it and is why they were more than halpy to VOLUNTEER to join the confederate army.

The south will rise again.

Oh, and the Confederacy banned blacks from serving as soldiers until 1865

At 2/10/2016 11:44:15 AM, augcaesarustus wrote:The CSA was short-lived and aside from the abhorrent issue of slavery, the Founders of the CSA were actually very astute politicians who learned from experience, and sought to remedy those issues believed to plague the USA.

My assertion is this: if the CSA Constitution was implemented instead of the USA (minus the slavery), the nation would be better, stronger and more prosperous.

America would be a much better place if the CSA won the Civil War. There'd still have been slavery for maybe 20 more years tops, but there would be no KKK or other racist organizations, and there would've been a much better relationship between races. I always think of it like this: Your mom interrupts you doing something and gets pissed off at you because you haven't cleaned your room, but were planning on cleaning it later in the day. Now you're pissed off too, and less inclined to clean your room. The same could've been said about Civil Rights in the South, which took 100 years after the Civil War to fully implement, due to the fact that the North forced the South to capitulate militarily and abandon their already waning ideology.

Uh.............This is the biggest denial of history I've seen in a long, long time. Slavery was a foundational pillar of the South's economy. And you think they would have up and abandoned it within 20 years? No way.

I agree. This notion that is pushed that given a couple years, they would have been right on board is revisionists. Decline, sure. Without pressure there would be no reason to change, and it is a fare bet that it would have lasted until ANOTHER pressure point was experienced.

At 2/10/2016 11:44:15 AM, augcaesarustus wrote:The CSA was short-lived and aside from the abhorrent issue of slavery, the Founders of the CSA were actually very astute politicians who learned from experience, and sought to remedy those issues believed to plague the USA.

My assertion is this: if the CSA Constitution was implemented instead of the USA (minus the slavery), the nation would be better, stronger and more prosperous.

America would be a much better place if the CSA won the Civil War. There'd still have been slavery for maybe 20 more years tops, but there would be no KKK or other racist organizations, and there would've been a much better relationship between races. I always think of it like this: Your mom interrupts you doing something and gets pissed off at you because you haven't cleaned your room, but were planning on cleaning it later in the day. Now you're pissed off too, and less inclined to clean your room. The same could've been said about Civil Rights in the South, which took 100 years after the Civil War to fully implement, due to the fact that the North forced the South to capitulate militarily and abandon their already waning ideology.

Uh.............This is the biggest denial of history I've seen in a long, long time. Slavery was a foundational pillar of the South's economy. And you think they would have up and abandoned it within 20 years? No way.

Yes they would they were already the first country to outlaw slave trade with Africa. It was out the door, and even blacks knew it and is why they were more than halpy to VOLUNTEER to join the confederate army.

The south will rise again.

Oh, and the Confederacy banned blacks from serving as soldiers until 1865

Back in the day, the majority of the world's cotton was grown in the South.The cotton industry was the goose that laid the golden eggs.Because they did not have to pay the black workers who made the white fiber, the Southerners believed they could sell cotton at a lower price than anyone else in the world.If Ben Franklin were President then, he might have invented a steam powered version of the cotton picking machines we use now, and avoided going to war.

And slavery was a huge part of Southern agriculture. Their very Constitution made it illegal to prohibit slavery. There's no way they would have stopped. There was no abolitionist movement in the South. No major push for slavery to end.

Constitutional amendment would've stopped it, and if you read my article I presented you would see that an amendment would've been necessary for the Confederates to continue making their whopping profits off of agricultural trade. If you have no one to trade with, you don't make money. Never said there was an abolitionist movement in the South, but there was around the world with southern trading partners.

20-30 years is what most historians agree upon. Slavery was already on the decline, the slave trade stopped in 1807, so no more additional slaves were brought to America. Only 5% of the Southern population owned slaves in 1860. 75% of those owners held less than 10 slaves, and worked along side them in the fields. Thousands of freed slaves immigrated to Liberia during the same period as well.

No, most historians do not agree on that. Regency Publishing agrees on that, when they publish their works of fiction. Powell rather obviously calls peaceful emancipation a better alternative than war, but this ignores the fact that there was no push for peaceful emancipation in the south. Even Powell admits that it would have taken a long time - certainly much longer than 20 years.

Already pointed out undeniable evidence in an earlier link suggesting CSA plans to end slavery.

Also, in 1860, the South accounted for 75% of all US exports.

What did you expect? The industrial revolution in America was just beginning. Heres an excerpt from this article https://www.gilderlehrman.org... which clearly shows how Industry was on the rapid rise, while agriculture was on it's way out. Agricultural efficiency increased a ton during the post war period as well, as the article points out. The graphics you looked at to get the 75% number only go up to 1860. There's a reason for that.

"Farmers had the largest share of the dollar value of American economic output until 1880 when commerce"s 29 percent of the gross national product edged out their 28 percent. In 1890 manufacturing and mining at 30 percent share of the GNP both exceeded agriculture"s 19 percent share. During the same period, the percentage of workers employed in agriculture fell. A majority of the nation"s workers were farmers or farm laborers in 1860, but by 1900 the figure had declined to 40 percent.

Such statistics seemed to reflect a decline in the importance of farming, but in fact, they reflected its significance and efficiency. Farmers produced more than the country could consume with smaller and smaller percentages of its available labor. They exported the excess, and the children of farmers migrated to cities and towns. Where at the beginning of the century exports composed about 10 percent of farm income, they amounted to between 20 and 25 percent by the end of the century. What farmers sold abroad translated into savings and consumption at home that fueled the nation"s industry. Migration from rural to urban areas dwarfed both foreign migration and westward migration. American agricultural productivity allowed it to remain the world"s greatest agricultural economy while it became the world"s largest industrial producer.

The rise of industrial America, the dominance of wage labor, and the growth of cities represented perhaps the greatest changes of the period. Few Americans at the end of the Civil War had anticipated the rapid rise of American industry. For the first time in the nation"s history, wage earners had come to outnumber the self-employed, and by the 1880s these wage earners were becoming employees of larger and larger corporations. As the Massachusetts Bureau of Statistics and Labor declared in 1873, wage labor was universal: "a system more widely diffused than any form of religion, or of government, or indeed, of any language."

This is completely false in assessing what caused the demise of the Southern economy. The Civil War was a Total War. The Union completely destroyed southern infrastructure, southern farms, and even some major southern towns and cities.It also fails to point out the fact that there were essentially slaves working in the northern industrial section after the war as well. Child labor anyone? Dirt cheap wages? Sweat Shop conditions? There were no other jobs available for blacks after the war, that's why they went back to the farms, which is why reconstruction was a complete failure. Reconstructions failure completely alienated the Civil War.

This guy doesn't know anything about Abe Lincoln or the North. The simple truth is, Abe was not in favor of ending slavery until he realized it would be a necessary evil to preserve the Union, and multiple Union states were slave holders up until the 13th amendment. He didn't even use the Emancipation Proclamation on a moral basis, he used it to give the Union an advantage and cripple the already suffering Southern economy. Here's the theme of Lincoln's presidency: Preserve the Union. The republican party was not fond at all of Abe as well. Here's some quotes that reveal his position on equality: http://atlantablackstar.com...

These sources completely spin the history of the Civil War in their favor by completely ignoring extremely important aspects of it's History. Go figure the authors are political commentators and not historians.

Britain and France actually largely supported the Confederacy. If they hadn't already been Republic-esque countries, they would have lent their unconditional support. The only reason they did not was because of their people being against it.

This is completely false, and you completely contradicted yourself. The only support the CSA got was from actually purchasing ironclads and blockade runners from the British. Neither country formally recognized the CSA, and the citizenry and government representatives for both countries would not have done so as long as the CSA was a slave holding nation.

Check out this article that actually points out Confederate plans to abolish slavery to win recognition from those powers, and also win back the trade that the Southern economy depended on: https://www.libertyclassroom.com...

And slavery was a huge part of Southern agriculture. Their very Constitution made it illegal to prohibit slavery. There's no way they would have stopped. There was no abolitionist movement in the South. No major push for slavery to end.

Constitutional amendment would've stopped it, and if you read my article I presented you would see that an amendment would've been necessary for the Confederates to continue making their whopping profits off of agricultural trade. If you have no one to trade with, you don't make money. Never said there was an abolitionist movement in the South, but there was around the world with southern trading partners.

They had plenty of places happy to trade with them. Especially if they'd won. And no amendment ever would have passed. Certainly not within the 19th century. You act like Southerners only kept the slaves out of economic necessity and not deeply ingrained beliefs.

Already pointed out undeniable evidence in an earlier link suggesting CSA plans to end slavery.

And I pointed out several links demonstrating exactly why they wouldn't.

Also, in 1860, the South accounted for 75% of all US exports.

What did you expect? The industrial revolution in America was just beginning. Heres an excerpt from this article https://www.gilderlehrman.org... which clearly shows how Industry was on the rapid rise, while agriculture was on it's way out. Agricultural efficiency increased a ton during the post war period as well, as the article points out. The graphics you looked at to get the 75% number only go up to 1860. There's a reason for that.

Yeah, the war started.

"Farmers had the largest share of the dollar value of American economic output until 1880 when commerce"s 29 percent of the gross national product edged out their 28 percent. In 1890 manufacturing and mining at 30 percent share of the GNP both exceeded agriculture"s 19 percent share. During the same period, the percentage of workers employed in agriculture fell. A majority of the nation"s workers were farmers or farm laborers in 1860, but by 1900 the figure had declined to 40 percent.

Such statistics seemed to reflect a decline in the importance of farming, but in fact, they reflected its significance and efficiency. Farmers produced more than the country could consume with smaller and smaller percentages of its available labor. They exported the excess, and the children of farmers migrated to cities and towns. Where at the beginning of the century exports composed about 10 percent of farm income, they amounted to between 20 and 25 percent by the end of the century. What farmers sold abroad translated into savings and consumption at home that fueled the nation"s industry. Migration from rural to urban areas dwarfed both foreign migration and westward migration. American agricultural productivity allowed it to remain the world"s greatest agricultural economy while it became the world"s largest industrial producer.

The rise of industrial America, the dominance of wage labor, and the growth of cities represented perhaps the greatest changes of the period. Few Americans at the end of the Civil War had anticipated the rapid rise of American industry. For the first time in the nation"s history, wage earners had come to outnumber the self-employed, and by the 1880s these wage earners were becoming employees of larger and larger corporations. As the Massachusetts Bureau of Statistics and Labor declared in 1873, wage labor was universal: "a system more widely diffused than any form of religion, or of government, or indeed, of any language."

I love how all of this is predicated on the North having won, which directly contradicts your base assumption. You think the Confederacy winning the war wouldn't destroy Northern industrial output? Ha!

This is completely false in assessing what caused the demise of the Southern economy. The Civil War was a Total War. The Union completely destroyed southern infrastructure, southern farms, and even some major southern towns and cities.

The Civil War is not recognized as a total war.

It also fails to point out the fact that there were essentially slaves working in the northern industrial section after the war as well. Child labor anyone? Dirt cheap wages? Sweat Shop conditions? There were no other jobs available for blacks after the war, that's why they went back to the farms, which is why reconstruction was a complete failure. Reconstructions failure completely alienated the Civil War.

Reconstruction was at best a partial success. Not that anything you said here has any relevance.

This guy doesn't know anything about Abe Lincoln or the North. The simple truth is, Abe was not in favor of ending slavery until he realized it would be a necessary evil to preserve the Union, and multiple Union states were slave holders up until the 13th amendment. He didn't even use the Emancipation Proclamation on a moral basis, he used it to give the Union an advantage and cripple the already suffering Southern economy. Here's the theme of Lincoln's presidency: Preserve the Union. The republican party was not fond at all of Abe as well. Here's some quotes that reveal his position on equality: http://atlantablackstar.com...

And...what does any of this have to do with the link's core argument? Nothing. It's a tangential straw man you created.

These sources completely spin the history of the Civil War in their favor by completely ignoring extremely important aspects of it's History. Go figure the authors are political commentators and not historians.

Funny, because your link does the exact same, only even worse.

Britain and France actually largely supported the Confederacy. If they hadn't already been Republic-esque countries, they would have lent their unconditional support. The only reason they did not was because of their people being against it.

This is completely false, and you completely contradicted yourself. The only support the CSA got was from actually purchasing ironclads and blockade runners from the British. Neither country formally recognized the CSA, and the citizenry and government representatives for both countries would not have done so as long as the CSA was a slave holding nation.

No, this is completely true. Both countries' ruling governments were deeply sympathetic to the confederacy. The general public was not. That is the only distinction,

Check out this article that actually points out Confederate plans to abolish slavery to win recognition from those powers, and also win back the trade that the Southern economy depended on: https://www.libertyclassroom.com...

They had plenty of places happy to trade with them. Especially if they'd won. And no amendment ever would have passed. Certainly not within the 19th century. You act like Southerners only kept the slaves out of economic necessity and not deeply ingrained beliefs.

Not really, as I previously said during the Civil War the world completely switched to Egypt for cotton. You can only trade cotton to industrialized nations where there is a textile industry so Great Britain, France, Germany and Russia were the primary trade partners, and all were very anti-slavery by this time. Half of the cotton output was sent to Britain.

Already pointed out undeniable evidence in an earlier link suggesting CSA plans to end slavery.

And I pointed out several links demonstrating exactly why they wouldn't.

Have you still not read the article I originally linked? Jefferson Davis and his cabinet were openly discussing an amendment and then sent diplomats to Europe to say that the CSA would abandon slavery in return for recognition and trade.

Yeah, the war started.

Think a little deeper. Maybe it only went up to 1860 because during/after the civil war southern exportation decreased astronomically compared to Northern industrial goods?

Such statistics seemed to reflect a decline in the importance of farming, but in fact, they reflected its significance and efficiency. Farmers produced more than the country could consume with smaller and smaller percentages of its available labor. They exported the excess, and the children of farmers migrated to cities and towns. Where at the beginning of the century exports composed about 10 percent of farm income, they amounted to between 20 and 25 percent by the end of the century. What farmers sold abroad translated into savings and consumption at home that fueled the nation"s industry. Migration from rural to urban areas dwarfed both foreign migration and westward migration. American agricultural productivity allowed it to remain the world"s greatest agricultural economy while it became the world"s largest industrial producer.

The rise of industrial America, the dominance of wage labor, and the growth of cities represented perhaps the greatest changes of the period. Few Americans at the end of the Civil War had anticipated the rapid rise of American industry. For the first time in the nation"s history, wage earners had come to outnumber the self-employed, and by the 1880s these wage earners were becoming employees of larger and larger corporations. As the Massachusetts Bureau of Statistics and Labor declared in 1873, wage labor was universal: "a system more widely diffused than any form of religion, or of government, or indeed, of any language."

I love how all of this is predicated on the North having won, which directly contradicts your base assumption. You think the Confederacy winning the war wouldn't destroy Northern industrial output? Ha!

If the south took the White House/Philadelphia the war would've been over. The industries would not have been touched. It's more predicated on a peaceful solution that would've kept the Union and Confederacy separate entities. That industrial article debunks your theory that slave labor would still be in high demand.

This is completely false in assessing what caused the demise of the Southern economy. The Civil War was a Total War. The Union completely destroyed southern infrastructure, southern farms, and even some major southern towns and cities.

The Civil War is not recognized as a total war.

Lol... are you serious? Have you not heard of the complete blockade of every southern port, or Sherman's march to sea? It's definitely a total war.

It also fails to point out the fact that there were essentially slaves working in the northern industrial section after the war as well. Child labor anyone? Dirt cheap wages? Sweat Shop conditions? There were no other jobs available for blacks after the war, that's why they went back to the farms, which is why reconstruction was a complete failure. Reconstructions failure completely alienated the Civil War.

Reconstruction was at best a partial success. Not that anything you said here has any relevance.

No, it was at best a failure. The goal of reconstruction was to rebuild the south into a region where blacks could be implemented as equals into society. Result: Jim Crowe. Complete failure.

This guy doesn't know anything about Abe Lincoln or the North. The simple truth is, Abe was not in favor of ending slavery until he realized it would be a necessary evil to preserve the Union, and multiple Union states were slave holders up until the 13th amendment. He didn't even use the Emancipation Proclamation on a moral basis, he used it to give the Union an advantage and cripple the already suffering Southern economy. Here's the theme of Lincoln's presidency: Preserve the Union. The republican party was not fond at all of Abe as well. Here's some quotes that reveal his position on equality: http://atlantablackstar.com...

And...what does any of this have to do with the link's core argument? Nothing. It's a tangential straw man you created.

This is from the Southern Poverty Law Center. Horrible place to get information from. It's a complete scam, which is why the FBI dumped it in 2014.

Says the guy who cites Breitbart. Unfortunately for you, the SPLC is still widely regarded as reliable.

The Breitbart article is no different than the Washington times article... Breitbart's could actually be seen as better due to the primary source. SPLC is a Soros site. That's about the furthest from credible you can get.

These sources completely spin the history of the Civil War in their favor by completely ignoring extremely important aspects of it's History. Go figure the authors are political commentators and not historians.

Funny, because your link does the exact same, only even worse.

Yea, by giving direct quotes in Lincoln's speeches and letters, that link spins history. Yup!

This is completely false, and you completely contradicted yourself. The only support the CSA got was from actually purchasing ironclads and blockade runners from the British. Neither country formally recognized the CSA, and the citizenry and government representatives for both countries would not have done so as long as the CSA was a slave holding nation.

No, this is completely true. Both countries' ruling governments were deeply sympathetic to the confederacy. The general public was not. That is the only distinction,

They obviously weren't, because neither recognized the CSA as legitimate, and neither offered any significant aid to the CSA either.

Horribly biased and completely inaccurate.

LOL. There's absolutely no bias, it's an account of history."Kenner"s tale was recorded in 1899 by the historian William Wirt Henry, grandson of Patrick Henry, and is legitimate. The Library of Congress admitted its validity in 1916, and referenced the Joseph Brent Papers, now housed at Louisiana State University, as evidence."